From: markus schnalke <meillo@marmaro.de>
  To  : <masqmail@marmaro.de>
  Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 21:54:38 +0200

Re: [masqmail] Plans for a 0.3 dev branch

[2010-05-30 14:53] Juergen Daubert <jue@jue.li>
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:06:32PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote:
> > 
> > Plans for 0.3:
> > 
> > - Do file and mserver querying based on online_pipe. We can use cat
> >   and mservdetect. Actually mservdetect was meant for this since
> >   0.2.0: ``This method will once replace the 'mserver' option''
> 
> That means pipe remains the only method to detect online status? 

Yes, that's what I have in mind.

> I'm all for removing the whole masqdialer stuff, because that seems
> a bit outdated in times of dsl.

It will then still be available as the separate mservdetect program.
But not within masqmails main source code anymore.

> But is the additional code needed for
> the file method that large? It's more effort to create a script and
> might be less secure as well.

I think it would be good to not specify a executable file for
online_pipe but a command line. It could still be the path to an
executable file then, but also something like:

	online_pipe = "cat /some/file"
or
	online_pipe = "echo foo"

I think from the security point of view, the case would be not
different to the current situation.


> > - Think also about basing mbox and maildir delivery on an MDA. This
> >   would require an MDA then. (A specialized MDA is probably the better
> >   approach anyway.) Maybe move mbox delivery into a separate program
> >   which gets distributed to ensure some delivery capacity. A wrapping
> >   shell script could care about {mbox,maildir,mda}_users.
> 
> That's a big restriction IMO, you need additional stuff like maildrop 
> or procmail which in turn is another point of failure. 

So we should at least keep the mbox delivery. Or maildir too? From my
POV, it is better to use tools that focus on mail delivery for mail
delivery. I understand to have a fallback facility in masqmail, but
more sophisticated facilities should be covered by external tools.

What do you think?


> > - Think about excluding the get function into a separate program. Does
> >   anyone uses it at all?
> 
> The main reason for Oliver to implement the get function might have 
> been the POP-before-SMTP usage.

Ah okay, that makes sense.

> Don't know if we still need that 
> nowadays, if not I'd remove it.

Haven't heard of anyone needing that. I'll try to find out if it's
still relevant.


> > - Add more and better automated tests. I really want to have this ...
> >   but unfortunately, I'm not very keen on implementing it. ;-)

Worked on masqmail's test cases today. They are still far from
perfect, but they are much better, and first of all up to date, now.

@all: If you run them on your computers, please let me know if they
went well.


meillo